[93919] in tlhIngan-Hol
Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: chIp
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Felix Malmenbeck)
Fri Jun 29 10:20:09 2012
From: Felix Malmenbeck <felixm@kth.se>
To: Steven Boozer <sboozer@uchicago.edu>, "tlhingan-hol@kli.org"
<tlhingan-hol@kli.org>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 14:19:36 +0000
In-Reply-To: <ACF6622D959A8842A81E4471BA56A7E001ED7EFE@xm-mbx-04-prod.ad.uchicago.edu>
Errors-To: tlhingan-hol-bounces@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
ghItlhta' Voragh:
> I agree. If it were, the definition would have been "cut hair" not "cut =
(hair)". =
> I think Okrand added "(hair)" to distinguish {chIp} from the more general=
verb
> {pe'} "cut".
I've taken it to mean something more like "If the verb takes an object, it =
should be some form of hair. For example, {jIb}, {rol} or {veD}." Sort of t=
he way parentheses are used to distinguish between the meaning of "follow" =
for <ghoS> =3D "follow (a course)", <pab> =3D "follow (rules)" and <tlha'> =
=3D "follow".
Like SuStel, I think it might be to signify that it still makes sense to us=
e this verb with an object: <jIbDaj chIplI'> means "He's cutting her hair."=
, not "He's cutting hair her hair."
If I had a limited amount of space and had to give you a translation of the=
French word "coiffer" or the Swedish word "frisera", I might very well pro=
vide it as "cut (someone's) hair", to signify that (someone) is the object.
Also, like SuStel:
> I think the use of parentheses is inconsistent enough that you can't
> rely on it too closely.
vItmo' vIghItlhqa'ta'. {Quoted for truth.}
[[Off-topic: If I ever become an English teacher, I must remember to use ha=
ircuts as an example of the hazards of direct translations.
English: "I'm getting my hair cut, tonight."
Swedish: "Jag ska klippa mig ikv=E4ll."
Backtranslation: "I shall cut myself, tonight."]]
________________________________________
From: Steven Boozer [sboozer@uchicago.edu]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2012 15:42
To: tlhingan-hol@kli.org
Subject: Re: [Tlhingan-hol] Klingon Word of the Day: chIp
ghunchu'wI':
> It might not even be stretching the meaning at all. {chIp} doesn't
> actually *include* the hair idea. That's given in parentheses as an
> example of the kind of object it can have, not as the only one
> possible. I'd accept that {chIp} alone does *imply* hair, based on the
> {ghuS} example, but I wouldn't expect any verb to have its object
> restricted to a specific noun.
I agree. If it were, the definition would have been "cut hair" not "cut (h=
air)". I think Okrand added "(hair)" to distinguish {chIp} from the more g=
eneral verb {pe'} "cut".
A better question is: How do {chip} and {poD} "be clipped"/{poDmoH} "clip"=
differ? The former has never been used in a sentence AFAIK and the latter=
only appears in {tlhIngan Hol poD} "Clipped Klingon" and {Hol poD} "clippe=
d language". Does one use {poDmoH} for, say, clipping one's nails or snipp=
ing off a single rose from the stem? Can we say ?{lav chIp} for trimming s=
hrubbery to a uniform height? Would *{poDmoHwI'} work for "clippers, secat=
eurs" but ?{lav chIpwI'} for "hedge trimmers"?
--
Voragh
Ca'Non Master of the Klingons
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
_______________________________________________
Tlhingan-hol mailing list
Tlhingan-hol@stodi.digitalkingdom.org
http://stodi.digitalkingdom.org/mailman/listinfo/tlhingan-hol
